Re: [mizar] Opinion to MML situation

[Andrzej Trybulec <trybulec@math.uwb.edu.pl>]

Dear Yatsuka,

I quite agree that the reviewing process should not slow down the growth
of the repository. It is necessary now, with 2 month exprience to
analyze carefully what is wrong. So, it is time to review reviewers.

All the best,
Andrzej

Yatsuka Nakaura wrote:
> Opinion:
> 
> I have a question about the recent situation of MML.  It is done version-ups 
> frequently but the increase of MML is very little.   Certainly, I hear that 
> articles were surely contributed but they have not been contained to MML 
> yet.
> 
>    It seems a new referee system was introduced.  If this is a reason of the 
> delay, we must think measures against it.   The old style of referee system 
> by human causes some serious problems:
> 
> 1.      People can not have a method to know the situation of the latest 
> articles.   Avoiding overlapping, they hesitate to contribute new articles.
> 
> 2.      Basic articles are difficult to be accepted because of lacking 
> originality.  Very advanced articles are also difficult to be accepted 
> because of difficulty of persuading
> 
>      referees into understanding.
> 
> 3.       Lacking of speed of increasing MML is very fatal for automated 
> proof checker system, especially for Mizar.
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid the above problems and to maintain a referee system, I can propose 
> the following method:  abstract files of new contributed articles are opened 
> for some weeks at the Mizar web site, and public comments for them are 
> invited.  If there were not serious negative opinions after some weeks, the 
> article ought to be included to MML.
> 
>                  Yatsuka Nakamura
> 
>                     Shinshu University
>